This is why we vote blue down the line. Can’t start packing if we don’t have the majorities.
This is also why corporate and/or establishment types can justify voting for non-conservative, populist Trump and his lackeys. They’re getting so obscenely rich and powerful thanks to Trump’s SCOTUS picks that nothing else could possibly ever outweigh the short-term gains for them.
Just think of all the dropped suits against 3M, Boeing, the Sacklers, and Big Oil, when Project 2025’s plan for Schedule F employees comes to fruition.
The fact that this country isn’t on fucking fire about Project 2025 is a very bad sign.
It’s because they are all fascists. “Conservative” in America is just a synonym. Fascism has always historically been a boon to corporations due to their integration into the corrupt machine.
Corporations could not care less if someone is “conservative,” what they care about is money, power, and control. And fascism seems to be a good way to get that done, while also having the added benefit (in their minds) of causing millions of humans to suffer.
Win/win.
This is unconscionable
This is the result of protesting an election by abstention.
This is the result of a broken system. If every election comes down to either the status quo or blatant corruption the system has already failed.
Inevitably corruption will win at least once.
I’m guessing you still think the silence of your abstention will “make your voice heard,” even after witnessing all the damage it caused in 2016?
Funny how you folks complain about voter apathy but never critique the cause.
Please explain how a minority of abstainers will positively influence candidates.
I can easily explain how the exact opposite occurs in one sentence.
Conventions receive detailed reports on active registered voters and tailor their next candidate to capture more of that audience.
Oh there’s many. Why, you wanna run right to the genocide joe thing huh. Like oooooh ask me why we’re so apathetic ask it ask it
“You folks” are like that
And Moscow Mitch’s fuckery.
It’s sad that I’ve just resigned myself to say “this is our world now”.
But hey, at least we can now get abortions for medical emergencies in Idaho.
Keep cool and make it better as you can. In the meantime have a refreshing beverage.
So what are we going to do about it?
I used to live downwind of an oil refinery, and at least once a year (sometimes 5 or 10 times in a year) there was an illegal emission that blanketed the entire town with particulate matter. The air quality would go from perfectly safe to barely breathable in minutes. As someone with asthma, I felt it immediately, and would have to lock myself indoors with an air purifier.
We’re going to be dealing with significantly more wildfires and increasingly poor air quality thanks to climate change, so the least we could do is ensure that businesses don’t fuck up the air more than it already is.
Fuck the supreme court for doing everything it can to make our lives worse.
trump is illegitimate because he coordinated with russia to tip the election in his favor. That’s illegal. His SCOTUS picks are illegitimate as a result of that (not to mention the perjury, cover up of rape and so on, but for this argument that’s not necessary).
Failure to impeach and a failure to rectify both the illegal campaign AND the attempted coup (who the fuck does anyone think planned and approved that shitshow anyway) means we’re in fucking la la land as it is, so if we can’t vote them out because 18th century slaveholders befucked a system that crooked pols refuse to fix . . . Well, then ya got problems.
These fucking monsters are selling our fucking future for some post-ruling gifts/rewards (totally legal!!!)
“i’ll be happy to inhale toxic fumes, if it means owning the libs!!”
-GOP voter
“LOL we’re gonna be so rich”
-GOP lawmakers
Rolling coal is this exact mindeset in transportation form.
Rolling coal is a literal attack on everyone around them she should be treated as such.
They do it to me all the time, apparently because I drive a Prius. It doesn’t even make sense. It still has an internal combustion engine. I guess they’re mocking me for not having to pay as much per month for gas as they do?
you’re talking about people who go out and buy a 24 pack of bud light so they can get video of themselves shooting it with a shotgun
I’ve seen some exceptionally stupid people roll coal while going out the gate at a military base, it’s absurd.
They don’t think that deeply about it. The Prius was the first mainstream hybrid vehicle. The first got really got attention for being more environmentally friendly. So it got the right-wing media’s attention and they turned their base’s hateboners onto it. Even with EVs, the Prius is still the “eco car” to most.
Yeah, I drive a hybrid, but (so far) I haven’t had to deal with that crap despite living in a state where it’s common (they’re just not directing it at me, personally).
Prob cause my hybrid doesn’t look like a hybrid and looks exactly like its ICE counterpart.
Is this more of the “federal agencies can’t do anything not literally outlined in a law” shit? Because is that’s the case I guess the FBI, CIA, NSA, INS, ICE, etc can’t do nearly as much right?
Writing for the court, Justice Neil Gorsuch said the states are likely to win in the end, among the factors justifying the court’s decision to block the plan for now.
What? You didn’t get to rule on a case solely based on your fucking betting pool.
You get to if you’re one of the American Mullahs.
And I will keep calling them Mullahs when they can do whatever they want and everyone has to do what they say.
What? You didn’t get to rule on a case solely based on your fucking betting pool.
This is exactly how injunctions work. It’s a combination of “how likely is the party asking for the injunction to win” and “how much damage will be done if the injunction is not granted”. It’s the same logic used to block abortion laws from going into effect and things like Trump’s gag order being enforced, while those actual cases work their way through the courts.
“how much damage will be done if the injunction is not granted”
Seeing as how this prevents pollution, they clearly don’t give a shit about this second part.
I don’t disagree that their priorities are wrong, but this is not an aberration, this is the norm (and that norm should change)
The EPA can’t limit industrial pollution?
In capitalist America, pollution industry regulates you!
Fine. Pump it directly into their homes.
So, money is speech, is pollution speech too?
Basically. Like money speech, but with really bad breath.
It’s like they’re actively trying to destroy the planet.
deleted by creator
Supreme Court is running a yard sale on Democracy
Federal agencies creating and enforcing laws is not democracy… Only congress can create legislation per the Constitution.
Damn I guess elections really do have consequences.
Yeah dude I’m sure these old motherfuckers who dedicated their lives to ONE SINGLE ACADEMIC PURSUIT that is completely unrelated to science in just about every way, knows better than the EPA as to whether or not this plan is cutting air pollution.
Once again, we’ve encountered one of the many fatal flaws of our system: requiring every citizen and lawmaker to be an PhD level expert on literally every subject or else things break and people die. We’re all the ones who have to abide by their dumbass decisions when it literally kills our children. Very cool.
I honestly have no idea what point you were trying to make here.
People without understanding of science are overriding people who understand it and have data to prove it. Ideology is trumping logic and it’s going to kill us.
Read the original post:
The justices in a 5-4 vote rejected arguments by the Biden administration and Democratic-controlled states that the plan was cutting air pollution.
The court—that is 9 old people who have studied nothing but jurisprudence for the last 3 or 4+ decades —have decided that they are better qualified than the Environmental Protection Agency and the hundreds of thousands of scientists, engineers, and experts that make it up, to judge whether or not an EPA plan to curb pollution actually curbs pollution.
This (and the other decision that just came down about the SEC) seems to indicate to me exactly how they plan to rule in the Chevron Deference case, and it does not look good.
My only (admittedly convoluted) hope is that they decided to choose a couple of the regulatory issues on this session’s docket as a handout to the Captain Planet villains that make up the GOP, so they don’t lose their shit when they uphold Chevron.
I’m not holding my breath.
It does seem absurd that this stuff is tried in front of supreme court justices.
Could we do something like you say that involves experts in the field weighing in on the pros and cons, and costs?
Is it that the supreme court justices shouldn’t hear these cases at all, or that they are just so corrupt they can’t rule fairly?
deleted by creator
